Trump is now being universally called out for this. I wasn't sure he was capable of sinking much lower. Seems I was wrong.

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

It's actually the original French billion, which is bi-million, which is a million to the power of 2. We adopted the word, and then they changed it, presumably as revenge for Crecy and Agincourt, and then the treasonous Americans adopted the new French usage and spread it all over the world. And now we have to use it.

Trump is now being universally called out for this. I wasn't sure he was capable of sinking much lower. Seems I was wrong.

No, not universally. A number of "conservative" pundits have come out in support. See example of the shithead above--many others like him. Tomi Lahren explains that if other countries weren't shitholes, their citizens wouldn't want to move to the US. So, I guess Norwegians won't be moving to the shithole that is the US anytime soon.

“Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
— Bill Gates

Or why Africa is the way it is. Or that different places in Africa have different economic, social and political conditions. Or what those conditions in any of those countries are really like. And Trump doesn't have a clue either - and he apparently lacks the desire or mental capacity to learn.

The RulesCopper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)Platinum- treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

You're focusing on the individual words rather than the meaning of the sentence. I can't tell if you're doing it on purpose, or through your usual ignorance.

Individually, WHY would be the worst part of what he said. Yeah, some countries aren't up to your make-believe standards, just like parts of America aren't up to snuff.
Why would he use someone's origin as an excuse to demand additional reason for their presence? If these places are so awful, wouldn't there be an even greater obligation to help these people, since they are in the most need? The racism here is that Trump, at his core, believes some people do, and some people don't, deserve the chance to be Americans. He didn't ask about poor people, or uneducated people, or people with a criminal past, or even people who won't speak English. No, we already know how Trump is. You put a scary Muslim from Norway in front of him and compare them against a white South African and we all know that determining their shithole origin doesn't matter a damn.

In a single question Trump claimed America was for white people, the rest are outsiders, interlopers, that don't deserve a presence here until someone can prove why.

This is racism. This is white supremacy. This is Trump's pattern of behavior. Throwing a tantrum because the wrong people are enjoying the benefits of "his" country.

So you can fuck right off.

"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

Trump's comment also indicates he believes that a "shithole" country is the result of the "shithole" people living there. Why else would he not want them to come to the US?

The RulesCopper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)Platinum- treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

You're focusing on the individual words rather than the meaning of the sentence. I can't tell if you're doing it on purpose, or through your usual ignorance.

Individually, WHY would be the worst part of what he said. Yeah, some countries aren't up to your make-believe standards, just like parts of America aren't up to snuff.
Why would he use someone's origin as an excuse to demand additional reason for their presence? If these places are so awful, wouldn't there be an even greater obligation to help these people, since they are in the most need? The racism here is that Trump, at his core, believes some people do, and some people don't, deserve the chance to be Americans. He didn't ask about poor people, or uneducated people, or people with a criminal past, or even people who won't speak English. No, we already know how Trump is. You put a scary Muslim from Norway in front of him and compare them against a white South African and we all know that determining their shithole origin doesn't matter a damn.

In a single question Trump claimed America was for white people, the rest are outsiders, interlopers, that don't deserve a presence here until someone can prove why.

This is racism. This is white supremacy. This is Trump's pattern of behavior. Throwing a tantrum because the wrong people are enjoying the benefits of "his" country.

So you can fuck right off.

People don't have a right to come to America, America is our country not the world's. The worse off the country, aka the more shitty it is, the less likely they can be effectively screened for terrorist ties and/or ability to function in anything other than in the unskilled labor market. Why should America accept more people from crappy countries when we are already playing host to millions of illegals who have put a strain on social services, taxed city budgets and have led to more crime?

That makes you look even dumber. You don't know which regulations have been slashed, nor is there any information on how this recent decision has affected real economic growth or will affect growth in the long term (the most optimistic estimates are comparatively pessimistic). Nor do you have the slightest clue about whether or not the tax bill is fantastic, although everyone can see that the process whereby it was created was a profoundly diseased one. Trump has next to nothing to do with the campaign against ISIS--it's more accurate to say ISIS's opponents have prevailed despite Trump rather than because of him. Trump's and his admin's impact on US foreign policy and foreign relations have been negative. I'm honestly not surprised to see you trying to defend the corrupt, despicable and indefensible--it fits well your character and I've said right from the beginning that, in spite of your phony protests to the contrary, you're basically a Trumpist.

I can have personal beefs with someone (his poor temperament, the stupidity of going after McCain for being captured, his bull shit use of eminent domain in his business years) and see that he's been fantastic in terms of policy. Not perfect (See Sessions and the stupidity with drug laws, ending the TPP) but in almost everything else its been great. Lower taxes, less regulation, terrorist organizations on the run, lower unemployment, higher GDP growth, the UN pissed at us (this is awesome to almost any Conservative) and a brand new Supreme Court Justice in the mold of Scalia. Like wow, that's some good freaken work!

If you aren't on the right than yeah you should be mad at Trump, I don't blame you. He's been incredibly effective in pushing the conservative agenda.

People don't have a right to come to America, America is our country not the world's. The worse off the country, aka the more shitty it is, the less likely they can be effectively screened for terrorist ties and/or ability to function in anything other than in the unskilled labor market. Why should America accept more people from crappy countries when we are already playing host to millions of illegals who have put a strain on social services, taxed city budgets and have led to more crime?

Not only did you fail to address the concern that was raised concerning Trump, most of this is false fear mongering. Why are you such a sad little man?

Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 01-13-2018 at 11:57 AM.

"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

I can have personal beefs with someone (his poor temperament, the stupidity of going after McCain for being captured, his bull shit use of eminent domain in his business years) and see that he's been fantastic in terms of policy. Not perfect (See Sessions and the stupidity with drug laws, ending the TPP) but in almost everything else its been great. Lower taxes, less regulation, terrorist organizations on the run, lower unemployment, higher GDP growth, the UN pissed at us (this is awesome to almost any Conservative) and a brand new Supreme Court Justice in the mold of Scalia. Like wow, that's some good freaken work!

If you aren't on the right than yeah you should be mad at Trump, I don't blame you. He's been incredibly effective in pushing the conservative agenda.

You're an embarrassment to the term conservative.

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

The RulesCopper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)Platinum- treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

Colonization - No absolutely not! Nations that were colonised but have maintained the rule of law have thrived, in fact some have arguably thrived because they were colonised. C.f. the massive per capita difference between British Hong Kong and Communist China, which China is only now belatedly closing the gap in. Zimbabwe pre-Mugabe was the breadbasket of Africa, post-Mugabe it is the basket case of Africa.

Cold war exploitation and proxy wars - again no. The biggest divergence in many nations has happened entirely away from war or the Cold War. To take Zimbabwe again it collapsed economically following the corrupt "land reforms" that happened in peace time a decade after the Cold War ended.

Resource exploitation - again no. Nations have virtually all had their own resources to do with as they please for half a century or more at least.

The one consistent thing that really explains what happens is corruption and a lack of the rule of law. In nations where the rule of law applies like Botswana then growth can flourish.

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

Colonization - No absolutely not! Nations that were colonised but have maintained the rule of law have thrived, in fact some have arguably thrived because they were colonised. C.f. the massive per capita difference between British Hong Kong and Communist China, which China is only now belatedly closing the gap in. Zimbabwe pre-Mugabe was the breadbasket of Africa, post-Mugabe it is the basket case of Africa.

Cold war exploitation and proxy wars - again no. The biggest divergence in many nations has happened entirely away from war or the Cold War. To take Zimbabwe again it collapsed economically following the corrupt "land reforms" that happened in peace time a decade after the Cold War ended.

Resource exploitation - again no. Nations have virtually all had their own resources to do with as they please for half a century or more at least.

The one consistent thing that really explains what happens is corruption and a lack of the rule of law. In nations where the rule of law applies like Botswana then growth can flourish.

You know, you could just take a look at Haiti's history.

“Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
— Bill Gates

Colonization - No absolutely not! Nations that were colonised but have maintained the rule of law have thrived, in fact some have arguably thrived because they were colonised. C.f. the massive per capita difference between British Hong Kong and Communist China, which China is only now belatedly closing the gap in. Zimbabwe pre-Mugabe was the breadbasket of Africa, post-Mugabe it is the basket case of Africa.

Cold war exploitation and proxy wars - again no. The biggest divergence in many nations has happened entirely away from war or the Cold War. To take Zimbabwe again it collapsed economically following the corrupt "land reforms" that happened in peace time a decade after the Cold War ended.

Resource exploitation - again no. Nations have virtually all had their own resources to do with as they please for half a century or more at least.

The one consistent thing that really explains what happens is corruption and a lack of the rule of law. In nations where the rule of law applies like Botswana then growth can flourish.

Wow. Why all the denial, lol? You don't think the "lack of rule of law" in any given African nation today has anything to do with the continent's history over, say, the last 500 years? Today's "lack of rule of law" just occurred in a vacuum, nothing to do with anything that's gone before. Sure, makes sense. Nothing else in the universe is based on cause and effect, why would the history of any given African country be?

The RulesCopper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)Platinum- treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

Which bit of Haiti's history do you want me to look at specifically as a period marked by the rule of law and a lack of corruption?

The three decades of dictatorship under the Duvalier family? The year's of military dictatorship? The violence under Aristide interspersed by multiple coups? Or the dictatorship of Preval?

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

Wow. Why all the denial, lol? You don't think the "lack of rule of law" in any given African nation today has anything to do with the continent's history over, say, the last 500 years? Today's "lack of rule of law" just occurred in a vacuum, nothing to do with anything that's gone before. Sure, makes sense. Nothing else in the universe is based on cause and effect, why would the history of any given African country be?

I think the rule of law, as we understand it, is unusual. A not corrupt, law abiding society has not been the natural state of politics globally for as long as complex societies have existed. It takes a lot of effort and counter-balances to prevent the powerful from securing their power corruptly and that hasn't happened in Africa. I think you can look back more than 500 years and you won't see free, law abiding societies then either.

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

Is there anything this administration won't lie about? Trump has bragged multiple times about being a fast food junkie, so why fudge the numbers so that his claim of 6'3" at 239lbs just barely misses being labeled obese?

Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 01-17-2018 at 05:37 PM.

"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."